Rhetoric v. Rhetoric
posted by Orin Kerr
Nancy, isn’t Danielle’s article trying to use rhetoric against rhetoric? It seems to be that one side of this debate makes its case (rightly or wrongly) using the rhetoric of free speech. Danielle’s article tries to make its case (rightly or wrongly) by countering this rhetoric using the rhetoric of civil rights. Or to put it another way, one side of this debate sees free speech under assault; the other side sees civil rights as under assault. Or so it seems to me.
April 14, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Posted in: Cyber Civil Rights
Print This Post
Responses (2)
Seth Finkelstein - April 15, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Yes, but I’d phrase it slightly differently.
People usually think of free speech as a civil right. So the civil-rights rhetoric is designed to neutralize that, by coming up with a counter-right to override free speech, in the same “dimensions”.
Think of it as a liberal version of the conservative law-and-order rhetoric of “A criminal’s civil-rights? What about _my_ civil-rights to walk in safety?”.
Orin Kerr - April 15, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Seth,
Yes, that seems about right.
Leave a Reply